Lead vs Steel shot and pollution

[clayman]

Good thinking David, lets get a debate going.

 

The first thing an uninformed environmentalist says is Lead is bad for you, so lead shot must be bad. Lets ban it.

 

At the present time, however, a major study with a budget of £4m is well under way by independent experts overseen by the Dutch Govt, and is auditing the effects of lead ammunition on the environment, and the alternatives. Preliminary reports are already published, and all the shooting organistaions have been invited to seminars here in the UK to be informed.

 

The findings indicate the following:

 

Lead naturally oxidizes, and the oxide layer means the rate of degradation of a lead pellet is very slow. A pellet could easily last 100 yrs or more.

 

Conversely, steel degrades 100% per annum, the whole shot load will disperse as oxides into the ground / water in under a year.

 

Now consider, that steel shot contains heavy metals. In alloy steel, 5 - 50% can be metals other than iron such as: molybdenum, manganese, nickel, chromium, vanadium, silicon and boron.

 

It is also noted that medically a great deal is known about lead poisoning. It has been recognised for 100s of years, and the medical practices also know how to treat it effectively. A great deal is known generally about how to control the affects of lead on people, animals, and the environment.

 

On the other hand, the affects of the heavy metals leaching out of steel are much less well researched, and your average GP might be pushed to diagnose vanadium poisoning.

 

The thought trend from the experts involved in this lead amo audit is that it is better to deal with the small and slow degradation of lead, with recognizable and treatable results, than to allow quantities of heavy metals for be dispersed into crops , water and food chains, when little is known about possible side effects of these oxides.

 

Lastly, one needs to put lead from amo in the environment in a scale with other problems. Something of the order of 15,000 tons of lead is put down from shot each year ( say 1000 carts / annum per SGC holder = about 600m carts).

 

Lead isotopes from combustion falling into the soil across the entire country have resulted in increases between 3ppm and 10ppm since measurements began in 1946. The total metal fall out of oxides and harmful isotopes from automobile and energy requirements amounts to MILLIONS of tons per year. ( I did have the figures and ref but cant find them again on Google, any-one got the stats?)

 

By comparison with other environmental lead inputs, lead amo is insignificant, and should it cause a problem, easily recognised and treated.

 

Oh, and by the way, lead kills better - so I say lets keep it.

 

Waddatherestofyou think?

Edited November 22, 2008 by clayman

[BlaserF3]

How can anyone argue about facts like that

 

What a brilliant post and I agree with you 100% about using lead shot,it's much more humane to kill wildlife cleanly than wounding with steel.

 

If lead is ever banned some types of clayshooting will never be the same again either.

 

I grew up in a house with lead pipes,played with lead soldiers,kept air rifle pellets in my mouth for a quick reload filled my motorbike with 5 star

petrol and all the rest of the so called dangerous substances that we were allowed to use---and I'm still here.

 

I reckon it's all a con---just like global warming

[radio1ham]

hmmm if lead was banned for shooting well that would pretty much screw things up for a lot of us that use rifles aswell as shotguns dont think many rifles would handle steel bullets and not all shotguns are suitable for steel shot so alot of us would have to buy new guns and the guns we already have would be nothing more than scap metal

fair enough ban lead when shooting over waters to stop the birds etc eating it

would it be realistic to ban lead for guns altoegther

 

i think its time for another coffee

[David BASC]

In my opinion this is one of the most important debates we will have on this forum.

 

I accept fully that lead shot is only one source of lead pollution but that may well not cut it when a decision on the future of lead is to be made. Other countries in Europe, and the USA have faced the same issues and this has not prevented lead shot from being banned.

 

The loss of lead for shot is not going to spell the end of shooting, many countries do not use lead and shooting is still going on and indeed growing.

 

There are not plans for steel rifle rounds, but yellow metal rounds are effective.

 

If you put your clay pigeon, real pigeon, duck, pheasant, rabbit etc in the middle of your pattern within say 30m and the correct shot size then you are going to kill the bird / rabbit or break the clay regardless of what type of shot you are using.

 

Practice range judging and practice on clays and get your gun patterned so you know where it is shooting.

 

Lead over wetlands was shown to be an issue – see fishing from over 20 years ago and shooting about 8 years ago, but lead contamination by shot on other lands is a potential problem.

 

Many supermarkets will not take fruit & veg from farmers who let shooting over their land due to the possible contamination of the crop by lead shot.

 

One of my colleagues is a research scientist and has been involved in the lead debate for over 20 years, I will ask him on Monday for any comments he has on the report and its potential implications.

 

David

[clayman]

Here lies the dilema.

 

The initial reaction of the scientifically uninformed is to say, lead is bad, lets put steel out instead, must be better.

 

The lead ammunition audits scientific results are indicating that actually steel is far worse, so if we are going to chuck stuff out our barrels over wetlands, crops etc, we should stick with lead. The health risks are not high or serious, and the leech rate is very low. The affect of a build up of heavy metal oxides and isotopes is largely unkown, and the leech rate is very high so the concentration will build much more rapidly from steel shot.

 

The interim report was produced about 2 yrs ago, I think JH was at NSRA for the seminar and should have a copy of the findings at that time.

 

And yes, put the pattern in the right place, what the shot load is made of wont matter a great deal. Indeed, in pattern quality terms steel is superior to lead, but this thread is about lead vs steel in environmental terms, and lead/steel effectiveness is another issue that has been hotly debated in the past, and needs its own thread ( o 2 U D )

[mudpatten]

The green lobby is very strong in Holland and many forms of shooting are now banned or severely curtailed. The outcome that the researchers are after,is not a return to lead, but the banning of any form of shooting.

 

Having now used steel for wildfowling for some years, the fears about its lack of lethality by some contributors is misplaced. It actually works very well.

 

Nick.

[clayman]

Not at all. The desired outcome is to show lead is not as bad as imagined, and should stay.

 

The Lead amo audit is being conducted by independent experts, and their unbiased independence is being monitored by Dutch Govt officials as this is being treated as an official metal audit * . The recommendations arising from it will be based on scientific evidence, not environmental prejudice - the organization commissioning the study is the Lead Manufacturers Association who believe the environmental view is mis-founded urban myth, and that clear scientific evidence will halt the progression towards steel based on misguided and unproven hypothesis.

 

Contrary to what you might expect, the object here is to support lead and stop unnecessary levels of control being imposed by bureaucrats with no foundation for their diktats.

 

Talk to your average EHO at the moment about shoot ground pollution and they are likely to be thinking lead is bad / steel is good. Place the heavy metals / degradation rates, and self sealing properties of lead oxide arguments in front of them and the reaction is " Oh, never heard of / thought of this - I'll need to reserve judgment / research the issue some more "

 

If the scientific view conflicts with the environmental view, likelihood is that we will be left alone to shoot what we like, and the less interference the better!

 

* The W.H.O. is trying to organize that every metal / and its oxides and and isotopes are throughly investigated for medical affects on humans and livestock. Each metal is attributed to a member country to conduct the investigation and the results are public domain for all govts to use in regulation. This lead amo investigation is part of that international effort that extends to all metals.

Edited November 22, 2008 by clayman

[David BASC]

I fully accept the points made thus far, and await the full results of the research with interest, not only as a shooter but academically ( was a scientist before joining BASC a human biologist with specialist work in the water industry so I have been through aluminum and iron issues in the past)

 

What will be important will be for the industry to pull together when the results come out and the implications of the results are properly understood. The industry, i.e. suppliers, and shooting organizations must work together to help the shooters through what ever the outcome of the research and the governments reaction to it.

 

I have heard others say that they will take legal action against the government if the government decided on banning lead- hmmmm…I think that could be throwing money away to be honest and I am not sure would do shooting any good – but then again I am not a politician!.

 

We live in a changing world and although it would be lovely to keep everything the same I am afraid that this will not always be possible, we have to accept that sometimes when there is no real alternative we need to change and move on.

 

Wildfowling is still viable today, it is still popular today and is thriving, many said it would collapse if lead was banned – how wrong the doom mongers were I am very pleased to say.

 

David

[Imperfection]

David.Could you anwser me a question as you seem to know what you're talking about!

 

I live in a hard water area and in the older Georgian parts of town-lead pipes are to my knowledge still being used.I was always told that they pose no health threat in hard water areas because limescale coats the inside of the pipes so therefore running water cannot erode inside surface and poison the water.

 

So if this is true,would falling rain not become alkaline once in the soil and in theory would coat any surface it regulary comes into contact with like lead shot for example or does it take time for the water to go limey?

 

Appologies in advance if this sounds a bit dumb!

[David BASC]

Rain water may be neutral or slightly acid or slightly alkaline depending where it falls, the chemistry of the water will change depending on the soil it falls on and filters through.

 

Metals exposed to the environment will start to undergo chemical change depending on what they are made up of and what conditions they are in. Oxidation / corrosion occurs when an electrical cell is established on the metal surface. Oxidized metals are in a far more stable state than non oxidized metals, and every metal, indeed element wants to get to its most stable state

 

You will notice I am sure that water and other utility companies are always busy now a days replacing or lining old metal pipes with nice new plastic ones.

 

I seriously doubt that even in with very alkaline rain water conditions you would get sufficient surface deposits of calcium based compounds or other inert deposition to make any difference at all, and shot will start to undergo chemical change before any inert covering can form.

 

David

[Imperfection]

Cheers for clearing that up then David.

[mudpatten]

Clayman,

 

Many thanks for your clarification.

 

Nick.

[Big_Sam]

What bothers me more than lead is plastic wads.

 

I have never seen a cow try to eat #6 shot, but wads are quite chewy.....

 

That is a much bigger problem really.

[clayman]

I'm assuming BigSam knows how chewy they are from personal experience.

 

Perhaps shoot owners should stop burying / burning the wads and start melting them into a new snack bar

 

Choco-wad

 

Would certainly solve the what to do with the wads problem

 

[George1990]

And aren't kittens cute awwwwww

[clayman]

would falling rain not become alkaline once in the soil and in theory would coat any surface it regulary comes into contact with like lead shot for example or does it take time for the water to go limey?

 

Limescale formation will be too slow and porous. How long do stalactites take to form? Most metals exposed to air immediately start oxidising. In some cases the oxide coating is porous, as with iron, and the process continues right through the metal. Iron oxidises naturally to a pile of iron oxide we call rust. Steel pellets will do the same unless they were made with alloyed components to inhibit oxidization , ie stainless steel alloys. There are existing processes to make hermetically sealled pellets to exclude all oxidisation, but I am not aware of any brads being marketed with a plastic coating on the lead.

 

In the case of lead, a molecular layer of lead oxide forms on the surface that is highly impervious to oxygen reaching the remainder of the lead under the oxide layer, and this layer is bonded to the solid lead underneath. This slows the rate of further oxidization right down to as little as .3% pa = 300 years!

 

We observe this phenomenal as an everyday occurrence in the shiny chrome on our cars. This is rust free and shiny for the same reason. Chrome also oxidises a few molecules thick, less than 1/2 a wavelength of light, so the layer is invisible and seals the shiny chrome in for us all to admire.

[starlight32]

Load of old poppycock.......

 

When they undertook sampling of wetlands in my area in the run up to the lead ban the bore holes were totally inconclusive of any evidence of lead shot at all. The test holes were done over well shot areas too.

 

So then David if they ban lead what are going to shoot at pigeons with in English guns for example? Bismuth at 25 quid a box?

 

Just another typical English way of stopping something other than causing a foroe by banning it.

 

And for the record the right honourable lord Tebbit argued unquestionably in the defense of keeping lead in use and he still to this day raises the question in the house of commons about the fact the non-toxic alternatives have not come down in price like was promised by goverment it would when the lead ban came into force.

 

Now let us look at wildfowling in the UK. Most of the UK widlfowling areas are tidal water even inland? Correct?

 

So therefore any deposits of lead shot are quickly moved with tidal action.

 

Now then what of the USA? Well thats a little different. Most wildfowling is done inland on still waters over heavily shot static shooting areas. Bunch of shooters pull into a hide and then a little later another bunch come along- that is where you had the instances of lead shot being as deep a 4" over shallow wetland shooting areas.

 

Never give up anything as the lead ban was all about making life harder for shooters- Sweet ****** all to do with the enviroment.

Edited November 24, 2008 by starlight32

[David BASC]

I cannot agree that the lead ban for wildfowling came about just to make life harder for shooters - If the government wanted to make life harder or shooting they would increase the licence fee, up the requirements of SGC to that of FAC and introduce compulsory testing for example.

 

I agree that there is more merit in site specific bans as opposed to a species based ban on the face of it. BUT lead is a very well known environmental poison.

 

Not withstanding the fact that lead oxide is indeed very stable and prevents further oxidation, this does not prevent lead from leaching out to the aquatic environment- see lead pipes, lead dinking vessels, lead water tanks for examples.

 

Lead shot also has a massive surface area to volume ratio – a pound of lead shot will have far more surface area than a pound ingot of lead for example. More surface area means more opportunity for lead to leach out into the environment. The level of lead in the body that will cause problems is minute, and children under 12 are very susceptible to lead poisoning compared to adults.

 

Lead shot is not pure lead, it has other elements within it, and this may affect its chemistry in the environment. Thus there are potential issues with lead shot falling onto water catchment areas I would suggest, indeed I believe this has been raised by one local authority who tried to shut down a shooting ground – it has already raised its head.

 

The research when fully published and the associated reports too, will I have little doubt, give government advisors a clear indication as to the way forward, and will be a significant influence on their decision. I think we should welcome the fact that government is looking at independent scientific data to base it’s decision on, rather than a ‘knee jerk reaction’ that lead is bad so lets ban it!

 

But I would council caution about pushing for ‘steel is worse’ scenario. Lead has a bad name- lets not forget that regardless of how slow it is to degrade it is will set in the mind of the public (and with good reason) that it is toxic. If we push that steel shot is environmentally worse than lead shot- then if the ban lead what would stop them from banning steel as well?

[anser2]

Lets get one thing clear ... spent lead shot kills ducks. I used to work in a large wildfowl collection that was based over an area where game shooting had taken place in the past and we frequently lost ducks which after examination proved to have lead poisoning. We also used to ring wild duck and every year caught thin duck ( mainly tufted and pochard )which later proved to have lead poisoning. One spent pellet will kill a duck if swallowed and ground down in the gizzard.

 

Was it a problem in the UK ? Overall probably not , but in some areas wild swans , greylag and duck did die , sometimes in large numbers. As a wildfowler I was very much against the lead ban when it came in. Wildfowlers were hit harder as they were the shooters who needed high performance shells as a lot of their shooting was at long range as opposed to flight pond duck shooters who usually shot close birds. In the early days of the ban most non toxic was just not up to the job , bismuth was rubbish and as for the early steel the less said the better. However we now have very good steel shells for duck shooting and though they lack the high performance needed for goose shooting unless close . But we have hevi shot and tungsten pricey perhaps , but how many of us fire enough shells at geese for the cost to become a real issue. Both are as good if not better than lead.

 

Its been asked why didn’t we see lots of dieing ducks when we used lead. The answer to that is simple. It takes 5-7 days to kill a duck with swallowed lead pellets. After a day or two any affected birds are going to feel pretty sick and they will be the ones flying lower at flight or staying on the marshland creeks when the healthy birds have flown out to roost. Thus they are going to be the birds most likely to get shot , and before they start to lose condition.

 

I would not like to see steel be the norm for pigeon and game shooting , but it does perform within reasonable ranges and now a days is cheaper than a lot of lead game loads. There is an issue with game guns and steel shot , but wildfowlers have had to adapt and can now use strong 3.5 inch chambered guns. I am afraid game shooters may have to think about going down the same road. There can be no defence for continuing with lead for clays. If the shells have not quite got the hitting power for long range clays the solution is simple ..............move the clays closer. There is also the issue of shooting clays over water. I see this happen frequently , indeed there is one bi annual local country show where this happens despite the presence of several hundred mallard , tufted , pochard and teal wintering on the lake.

Edited November 24, 2008 by anser2

[David BASC]

We must not ignore the Water Framework Directive, if they do not want lead in their catchment area... then that is that - whether the shot was aimed at a pheasant, pigeon, clay or rabbit makes no difference at all.

 

With the price of steel in many cases well below that of lead, and with many grounds already using steel I suspect steel shot will become more popular anyway.

 

David

[al4x]

We must not ignore the Water Framework Directive, if they do not want lead in their catchment area... then that is that - whether the shot was aimed at a pheasant, pigeon, clay or rabbit makes no difference at all.

 

With the price of steel in many cases well below that of lead, and with many grounds already using steel I suspect steel shot will become more popular anyway.

 

David

 

 

If they're that worried about shot will the same apply to lead on house roofs pretty much every house has it and most rainwater will enter their catchment after contact.

[David BASC]

The Water Framework Directive lists lead and all its compounds as a key target pollutant. This will result in greater restrictions on its use and deposition into the environment.

 

What level of leaching comes from lead flashings I do not know- and it may be that this too comes under pressure to be replaced, with what I do not know – but lead shot of course is easier to control – not least of all because there are viable alternatives out there.

 

Iron / steel by the way in no on the hit list of the WFD.

 

David

[Ferret Master]

Another problem with steel is virtually all of the cartridges have a plastic wad...

 

FM

[al4x]

bearing in mind lead is a naturally occuring compound that can be mined in the uk I can see this making not a lot of difference.

[David BASC]

Lead is found as an ore in almost all cases. pure lead in v rare in nature. Uranium a naturally occurring compound that is mined.....

 

One issue with lead as far as the WFD goes is the deposition of lead into water catchments areas. Ingestion of contaminated food and drinking water is the most common source of lead exposure in humans, and this has been backed up by studies in the USA and Europe recently (specifically on the food side) OK the food angle is out of the clay shooting equasion I grant you – but there were some very interesting results.

 

Blood levels of lead once considered safe are now considered hazardous.In the body lead will mimic other elements such as iron and calcium, two very important elements for the running of a healthy body and also interfere with neorotransmitters in the brain, especially, those that, among other things, are most important for learning. Do we want this in our water / food?

 

There are things that clay grounds can do to help ‘manage’ lead of course and good guidance on this has been published a few years ago – as it goes with great input from Dr John Harradine at BASC.

 

Plastic wads are an issue I agree, and not just with steel - biodegradable wads are becoming more popular, but I suggest are still a hazard to livestock until they are well broken down.

 

I found out today that one cartridge maker in the UK stated that 50% of their clay cartridges are non lead... and speaking with a shooting ground today they told me that for the last couple of years ALL lessons they have given at the ground have been with steel shot...so I am not convinced that there would be a large resistance to steel in clay shooting if lead were restricted or banned.

 

David